Justice Clinton?

The President has another Supreme Court pick to make. This will not be a pick that upends the current conservative (5)/liberal (4) balance as Justice Stevens regularly voted with the liberal bloc. Still, as it seems anything the President does incites controversy on the left and right, this will be a delicate challenge.

I am certain the President is eagerly awaiting my advice,, so I will give it: nominate Hillary Clinton to the Supreme Court.

Yes, she already has a job, but Barak Obama is really his own Secretary of State. He is the visible player on the world stage. Hillary is respected and I am sure her counsel is taken seriously, but the Democrats do not lack for foreign policy figures who could take over the State Department. John Kerry yearned for the job. Bill Richardson seems to have put his potential legal troubles behind him. The short list of successors is rather long.

Why would Hillary do it? In reality, she probably would not, but then again she did not want to be Secretary of State. It would probably be more appealing if the Chief Justice slot were available, but a Supreme Court seat is pretty prestigious nonetheless.

She would not be a trailblazer, there have already been two women appointed to the Court. She likely would not be the first female chief justice as John Roberts is younger than she is.

Still, the Supreme Court might be a fitting capstone to her career. Unlike her husband, Hilary Clinton actually practiced law. She has been First Lady, U.S. Senator, Secretary of State and capping it off with a seat on the Supreme Court would surely leave her mark on history.

What's in it for the President? First, she can probably be confirmed. Yes, Republicans on the right still go apoplectic at the mention of the name "Clinton", but the Senate confirmed her for Secretary of State. Second, as a former U.S. Senator, senatorial privilege would likely grease the skids for her confirmation. Third, she is qualified. A former lawyer, Senator and Secretary of State: hard to argue she should not have a seat on the Court.

Better yet, it would remove the Clintons from presidential politics once and for all. No, she will not challenge President Obama in 2012, but if his political standing is weak, there may be those who try to persuade him to step aside, opening the door for a Hillary revival. If she were on the Supreme Court, she would not run and the option of pushing the President aside for Hillary would be off the table. Although a Clinton candidacy in 2016 seems remote, it is not out of the question and she would be battling whomever is President Obama's preferred successor for the Democratic nomination (an early guess: he won't be backing Joe "F'ing big Deal" Biden). Presidential politics without the Clintons? Yes, it would be a lot less entertaining, but the Democratic Party and the Country would likely benefit.

I am sure the list for this nomination will include several liberal judges and attorneys. I think the best way for a confirmation is to nominate Hilary Clinton.

You are welcome Mr. President. Next we'll discuss an ambassadorship for "F'ing" Biden.

That is what elections are for

I caught a little bit of the health-care summit this past week.

I must admit I did not have the full seven hours to devote to watching this on television or the Internet. I do commend the president of the United States for sitting in a room with members of Congress for seven hours. The hot air had to be stifling. For that matter, I commend the members of Congress who sat in the same room with the President (and Vice President Biden) for seven hours.

There are couple of suggestions I might make to liven up the program next time he decides to do this: First, how about Ryan Seacrest reading off the results of a nationwide vote about every hour or so and one member of Congress or the Administration getting kicked out of the room? Second, perhaps we could have Donald Trump and come in and fire one of the participants every hour or so. I do believe one of these might make for a little more compelling television.

The president said one thing that I do agree with: "that's what elections are for". I do not understand the Republican strategy of attempting to filibuster or derail the health-care bill. The president and the Democrats won the 2008 election. They have large majorities in both houses. This is their signature initiative. I agree with many of the Republicans' reservations and objections to the health-care plan but, the Democrats did win the last election. So I say to the Republicans: let them pass it and, more importantly, let them defend it.

There seems to be some fear amongst Republicans that the creation of this large entitlement program might ultimately be something that the American public likes. Let's face it, although many Americans profess to be fiscal conservatives, many Americans like their government services. We just don't like paying for government services for other states, cities or voters.

There is probably a legitimate fear amongst Republicans that, once the health-care plan gets embedded in the American way of life, the public will grow to like the benefits they receive and a Republican president and Republican Congress will not be able to undo it in the future. Let's face it, Ronald Reagan vowed to abolish the Department of Education and it is still around, bigger and more expensivethan ever. George W. Bush in eight years did little to reduce the size and cost of government.

If the American people finally like this large new entitlement program that is their prerogative. Again, as the president said that is what elections are for.

If however the American public finds come as I believe they will, that they are spending much more on health insurance and receiving much less, there will be a price to pay. The Democrats, having passed this on a strict party line vote will be the ones to pay the price. The Republicans must avoid the temptation to take a paternalistic attitude and try to "protect" the American people from themselves. If ultimately the American people do not like Obama care, President Obama and his party will pay the polls in 2010 and 2012.

So what should the Republicans do? I say participate vigorously in the debate. Set forth the reasons you object to the bill as proposed. Put forth your alternatives to Obama care. Then, the Congress vote and if it passes but the president signed. We had an election in 2008 he won.

The Democrats are going to try to pass health care in the US Senate through a process known as reconciliation. Honestly I believe the vast majority of the American people, including this writer, do not understand the reconciliation is, or if we do we think it is something that Charlie Sheen and his wife are doing. Therefore, I'm not sure that Republican objection to reconciliation is an effective argument that is going to resonate with the American people. Again, the Republicans should focus on their plan and the reasons they don't support Obama care, then let Congress vote, and let the President sign it.

And, as the president said, that's what elections are for. Maybe we can get Ryan Seacrest to read the results in November 2010.

Bye Bayh for Now

It is not a good year to be a United States senator and a Democrat. With President Obama dropping in the polls and the United States Congress even less popular, several prominent Democratic senators have decided it is time to retire rather than run for another term. Perhaps the most surprising announcement came today from Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana.

Bayh is one of those Senators who has an outstanding profile for a presidential candidate. He came into political office as the son of a prominent senator from his home state of Indiana. He ran for governor and was a successful two-term governor. He then ran for and was elected to the United States Senate. In the last three elections he has apparently been on the short list of potential Democratic nominees for vice president.

He is a fairly moderate senator from a state that normally leans Republican. He has managed to win there by taking more moderate positions on economic issues than the rest of his party. He has frequently been an advocate of responsible fiscal policy and controlling government spending. These positions are frequently set him apart from the rest of his party, particularly Democrats in Congress.

Still, it was a surprise today when he said he was through. He cited the excessive partisanship in Washington DC as the reason for his retirement. He noted that partisanship prevents anything substantive from getting done.

The way he is going out, sending warning about excessive partisanship along with a responsible fiscal record makes me wonder if we have seen the last of Evan Bayh. Let's fast forward ahead to 2012. I will say at the very beginning that incumbent presidents generally when renomination even in the face of relatively strong challenges from within their party. Jimmy Carter fought off the icon of Democratic liberalism Ted Kennedy in 1980. Gerald Ford held off the icon of Republican conservatism, Ronald Reagan, in 1976. Beating an incumbent president for the party's nomination is difficult and rare.

Evan Bayh however may be very well positioned to do just that. Polls are showing that President Obama's popularity is sinking rapidly. The perception has arisen that his Administration is engaged in reckless spending and growth of big government at home and a weak foreign-policy abroad. Critics both within and without the Democratic Party have questioned his pursuit of health care reform ahead of jobs creation. Likewise, many responsible critics have questioned the effort to turn the war on terror into a criminal investigation and prosecution rather than a more. Finally, the Nobel Prize seems to be simply a taunt from the rest of the world and a punchline here at home.

Democratic members of Congress, Democratic governors and democratic state legislators may become very concerned about their own electoral well-being in 2012. The prospect of an unpopular president Obama at the top of the ticket may begin to frighten them and they may discuss finding a candidate who can win.

What would be the alternatives within the Democratic Party to Barack Obama in 2012? By serving in the Cabinet, Hilary Clinton has effectively taken herself out of the running. She now takes ownership of the Obama administration's policies and would be perceived as extremely disloyal for running against him. She lacks any real credibility if she were to try and discount her role in the administration. The 22nd amendment prevents Bill Clinton from pulling a Teddy Roosevelt and trying to challenge one of his successors in a party primary. So who is there that could challenge Barack Obama?

Evan Bayh may be that person. A candidate with executive experience as a governor and a relatively fiscally conservative record as a senator. He hails from the Midwest, an area where Democrats need to win to break up the Reagan coalition and retain the White House. He is young, articulate and telegenic. It would be hard to dismiss him as a cook, a crank or an egomaniac for challenging the President within his own party.

This may be, and probably is, far-fetched but if you read sometime next year that Bayh is giving a speech in Iowa and/or New Hampshire, the White House should get very nervous.

At least they're not President

I have not been a fan of Pres. Obama but the bookshelves this week and give me reason to be happy he's president is opposed to at least two other people: Mark Sanford and John Edwards.

Two books are out this week by people close each of the former presidential contenders. The Edwards book is written by a former aide and the Sanford book was written by his soon-to-be ex-wife. I have not, and probably will not, read the books, but I have seen and read interviews with the authors. Apparently both books detail extramarital affairs being carried on by both presidential contenders. In Edwards' case the extramarital affair also produced a child that he now acknowledges is his. In the Sanford case the extramarital affair produced the now infamous "hiking trip" and the confession that his mistress was his "soul mate".

Yes, I am really glad these two are not President and will never be president. I am not going to get into the moral discussion of their behavior and the violation of their wedding bows. That seems rather obvious. To me, what shows that these men are not fit to be president and never were is the sheer arrogance, coupled with stupidity, of their actions.

Let's start with Sen. Edwards. He had a natural profile for high public office: very successful trial lawyer who won election to the U.S. Senate from a state that is fairly conservative. He managed to land a spot on the 2004 Democratic ticket as the vice presidential candidate and was viewed by many as just the type of moderate Southerner in the Democratic Party needed to reclaim the White House. The problem was, he was not real moderate in certain areas.

It is alleged that he carried a lengthy affair and got his mistress pregnant all while running for president. He never considered for one moment dropping out of the race even when confronted with his infidelities and the pregnancy of his mistress. His former aide alleges that an elaborate scheme was hatched to hide the mistress at various locations throughout the country while Edwards continue to campaign for the presidency. Only the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire state Democratic Party, and possibly the country, from a gripping scandal. Now it is just salacious and amusing, but what if Edwards was the Vice President or President of the United States? Thank you Iowa, thank you New Hampshire and thank you Barack Obama (bet you never thought I would say that).

I just have to shake my head when I hear the Edwards story. How could this man think that he could carry out a campaign for president of the United States and not get caught? In this day and age, how could he think the media would not eventually track down the story and publish it? As I said, it is either the height of arrogance or the height of stupidity. With that level of arrogance and stupidity, I'm thankful that he is not a person who will ever sit behind the desk in the Oval Office.

With Sanford, the story involves arrogance and stupidity mixed with just plain pathetic. Again, we have a man who was by all accounts was making plans to run for President of the United States. He has apparently been carrying on a relationship with this woman from Argentina over the course of several years. The whole thing came to light when the governor disappeared for a week.

When you're a governor of a state you cannot just disappear for a week. Literally nobody knew where he was including his own security detail. When the governor reappeared he initially said he was hiking to clear his head. He only later did he admit that he had been down in Argentina visiting his mistress. The governor had left the country and nobody knew about it.

Next however, the Sanford story seems to be slightly different from Edwards's. Sanford did not intend to continue a presidential campaign. He went on another type of campaign that was simply pathetic. He began doing a series of televised confessionals. Going on television and admitting he had been unfaithful to his wife would have been bad enough, but he went further. He went on to tell the world that his mistress was in fact his "soul mate". He said he was going to "try" to fall back in love with his wife. I think most of us watching those interviews were ready to draw the divorce papers for Mrs. Sanford for free.

For now, it appears these two are done with politics, particularly presidential politics. Remember, America does love a come back story. John Edwards already managed to get down to the earthquake ravaged Haiti and get himself in front of the cameras. I'm not convinced we've seen the last of him.

Sanford seems content serving out his term as governor and then hopefully going away. That said, there's no guarantee he will not find some cause to do his "good work" and an eventually turn up on Oprah to tell all of America that he has learned so much from all of his mistakes.

We do love comebacks.

For all my criticisms of President Obama, I can truly say I am glad he is president and not either of these two guys.

Massachusetts

I would have loved to have posted predicting that Scott Brown would when the Massachusetts Senate election last Tuesday. In fact, had I posted, I would of posted a prediction that the Democrat Coakley was going to win the election. I thought it would be close, but I simply could not wrap my mind around the idea of a Republican winning a Senate election in Massachusetts. I particularly could not grasp the idea of a Republican winning Ted Kennedy's old seat.

Yet that is exactly what happened on Tuesday. Brown's margin of victory was every bit as convincing President Obama's victory last November.

There are lessons for both parties in the outcome of this election. For Democrats it should be obvious: the country has problems with your agenda. When one of the most liberal states in the union says it is not like your agenda, that is a problem. Independents actually make up the largest bloc of voters in Massachusetts and it was the independents that turned on the Democrats. In November 2008 Independents turned on the Republicans. The message is, while independents were not happy with the Bush years, that did not mean they favored a return to FDR and LBJ style big government. For the last year, it seems that the only thing President Obama and Speaker Pelosi have been interested in growing the size of government. Jobs? Yes, they wanted to create government jobs and bail out the auto workers' unions. They misread the results of the 2008 election. Not everyone works for the government or belongs to a union.

For the Republicans the risk is reading too much into this election. While this election outcome, as well as the outcomes in New Jersey and Virginia last November are cause for hope, they did not mean the Republican brand is back. The candidates who won, won not because of the "R" after their name, but because of what they were saying. What they were saying was they favored lower taxes, less government intrusion into our lives and that they opposed the government takeover of health care. It is also interesting with these candidates were not talking about: they were not talking about their opposition to abortion or their opposition to gay marriage, and they were not talking about cracking down on illegal immigration. They were talking about kitchen table issues that matter to people. As a well know Democratic consultant once said, "It's the economy, stupid".

The lesson from Massachusetts should be that when Republicans focus on economic issues that really matter to people, they win. Despite President Obama's victory November 2008, this remains a center-right country. The current administration and current leadership of the Congress is nowhere near center-right, they are best described as left. They have pushed big government, higher taxes, and the redistribution of wealth. They are not offering solutions to the country wants and they are not talking about the issues that most people care about.

Therefore, while Republicans can feel that there is an opening to restore the Republican brand, they are still selling a brand that needs restoration. In the 2010 elections, Republicans need to offer an economic vision that is appealing to the country. I believe this will mean lower taxes, less government regulation and a plan for creating jobs. Much as the public did not view health care as the greatest challenge facing the country at this time, the public does not view gay marriage, or even illegal immigration, as the greatest challenge facing the nation. If Republican candidates allow themselves to get lost in these issues they will not be victorious. I am not advocating "moderate" Republican candidates over socially conservative candidates. What I am saying is: if Republicans can articulate a clear economic message, there is a real opening for making big gains in Congress in 2010.

In the meantime, a Republican holds a Kennedy sees in the United States Senate. Did we ever think we would live to see it?

The Greatest Nation

Over the last year it seems as though there has been a lot of apologizing for the actions of the United States. We are told that we have been "arrogant", "made mistakes" and not treated our allies, and our enemies, with respect.

Then along comes an event that reminds us of why we we are the greatest nation in the world: the Haitian earthquake.

Within hours of the quake, the United States was mobilized. The military was on its way to help. Yes, help, not invade, not bully, but help. That is what we do.

The American people responded by donating millions of dollars. We do this in still difficult economic times, because that is what we do.

We are the world's lone superpower and we saw this week why. What other nation can, and would, mobilize the resources and compassion that the United States has this week?

On Saturday we saw another testament to the greatness of the United States: three Presidents standing shoulder to shoulder in the Rose Garden announcing further relief efforts.

I have written before about the majesty of our peaceful transfer of power ("Today is the Day", November 4, 2008 ), but Saturday's event really brings that home. In what other country would the current and two former heads of state stand together and announce a joint international relief effort?

I am sure these three do not like each other much. Remember 42's wife ran against 44. 42 defeated 43's father. 44 spent much of his campaign talking about how he would undo what 43 had done. There is a lot of history amongs this group, yet here they stood, united to help those who need it most.

We have heard a lot in the last year, much of it from the President, about how the United States needs to be more humble in the world. This week showed however why we are entitled to a little arrogance or hubris. The United States can do things no other nation can. That is not always a bad thing.

Coming Clean

Mark McGwire admitted today that he used steroids at various points throughout his career . This is not a shocking admission as this has been suspected for many years. In fact it's an admission that is a long time in coming.

For McGwire, the question is whether this will really change things for his Hall of Fame candidacy. I recently stated my opinion that he was not a Hall of Famer based on statistics alone. His lone Hall of Fame justifying statistic is the 586 career home runs which now, by his own admission, are questionable.

Still, I believe it was wise for McGwire to acknowledge that he used steroids. He is attempting to return to professional baseball this spring as the hitting coach for the St. Louis Cardinals. I believe he should be allowed this opportunity to return to major-league baseball. Everything I've heard about Mark McGwire is that he is a nice man and a class act. He is also somebody who made a mistake or error in judgment. He should be allowed to admit it and move forward.

McGwire's admission would have been better had it come four years ago. In his statement today he said he took human growth hormone in an effort to try and heal from his injuries. Mark McGwire's career was racked by injuries. He missed the equivalent of several full seasons with injuries. Had he been able to stay healthy and on the field, he likely would have passed 700 home runs and possibly broken Henry Aaron's record.

So I believe McGwire's statement about why he took steroids. Here was one of the best athletes in the world who found himself unable to play the game. When offered something that might have allowed him to get back on the field of play is not unreasonable to expect that he would try it. Yes, it was probably illegal. Yes, he should not have done it. But, can we say anyone of us, when denied the opportunity to pursue something we love and something that will provide for our family for generations, would do whatever it to continue to pursue it? At best, we probably cannot say for sure.

When he reports to spring training as the hitting instructor for the Cardinals, McGwire will likely still have to do a drop dead press conference. He is going to have to stand there and answer all the reporters' questions. I believe if he does he can put the issue to rest. Once he answers all the questions I think the public will lose interest. It is not important to me how and when he took each injection.

I hope therefore that Mark McGwire's admission allows him to get on with his life and his career. For baseball I hope this may be a starting point in getting beyond the steroid era. There is still going to be criminal trial of Barry Bonds, a possible indictment of Roger Clemens and the names of the various alleged steroid users on the Hall of Fame ballot. Hopefully however Mark McGwire has started baseball on to a path out of the steroid era.

My vote for the Hall

I don't get a vote for the baseball Hall of Fame, but I think I should. In lieu of a vote, I will share here who I think should be in.

Putting aside my Pete Rose argument ("Isn't it Time" July 2009) there are a group of interesting candidates this time around. Nobody sticks out as obvious. There are no 300 game winners, or 3000 hit collectors and no iron men. We are left with a group who had good to almost great careers and solid Hall of Fame credentials.

Of course, I think Bert Blyleven needs to be in. Take a look at the pitching record books and you see his name everywhere. 287 wins on some pretty bad teams. Near the top in innings pitched (remember when pitchers pitched nine innings?) and strikeouts. The man is a Hall of Fame caliber pitcher. This is his 13th year on the ballot, come on baseball writers, let;'s get it right this time.

Another one who came close last time and should be inducted this year is Andre Dawson. I admit I had to do a little review of his career before I was sold. He toiled in Montreal for many years which meant playing most of his games away from communication with the rest of the baseball world. He moved on to the Cubs, but the it is easy to become anonymous playing where the ballpark is the attraction. Frankly, I just forgot about him.

If a player is forgettable, then is he a Hall of Famer? Well, I should not have forgotten about Dawson. He had nearly 2800 career hits. Yes, not quite 3000, but you need to play a long time at a high level to amass that many hits. He had over 400 career home runs. Yes, not 500 but in the post 1990-early 2000 era of expansion, small parks and steroids, are we still stuck on 500 as the minimum for induction? Dawson hit a lot of those home runs in Montreal's Olympic stadium, one of the more forgettable baseball venues of all time.

Early on he had a great arm in the outfield. In short, he was a complete player and I am sold on Andre Dawson as a Hall of Famer.

The 800 pound gorilla in the Hall of Fame room is Mark McGwire. 586 home runs, steroid allegations although no definitive proof and no violation of baseball's rules at the time. What to do? I say no on McGwire, but not because of the allegations. He ran up a lot of home runs in an era when balls were flying out of parks, The fact is however, that was all he contributed. He was a minimally adequate defense first baseman. Had he not gone to the Cardinals he probably would have spent the last ten years of his career as a designated hitter in the American League. Basically McGwire is known for hitting home runs in an era when home runs came faster and easier than ever before. Not enough for the Hall of Fame.

Of the first time eligibles, Roberto Alomar is expected to be voted in. Although I still have trouble getting past him spitting in the face of an umpire, the umpire involved seems to have forgiven him, so perhaps I should not hold a grudge. He was the best second baseman of his era, a Gold Glove fielder who contributed offensively. He did it over a 10-12 year period. Roberto Alomar is in.

I like Barry Larkin, but I think he may have to be on the ballot awhile. He put together a solid career, spending it all with one team (something I like). He was overshadowed by Ripken and then A-Rod at the shortstop position in his era. Larkin however, has an Andrew Dawson type resume of offensive and defense excellence over an extended period of time.

While I like Barry Larkin for induction, I cannot say the same for Alan Trammell. There are those pushing Trammell for the Hall of Fame. Yes, he had a 20 year career and was one of the mainstays of the Detroit Tigers' great 1984 team, but his candidacy appears based more on sheer longevity. A nice career, even a good career, is not a Hall of Fame career. I don't think Trammell makes it.

It seems like the hall of Fame is getting more difficult each year. As more of the steroid, expansion era players retire, it will be harder to compare offensive numbers against the past. On the defensive side, pitchers nowadays don't go nine innings and don't win 20 games, so the 300 win career may also be a thing of the past. Sure Glavine, Maddux and randy Johnson will be easy when they become eligible, but what about Mike Mussina and Andy Pettite?

And let's not even start on Barry Bonds...